Every bulk buyer get a big discount. If you think google uses a lot, you should see what some industrial companies that use electricity-heavy manufacturing processes (like the aluminum industry) uses. A lot of those guys have large power plants dedicated solely to them.

Not likely. A company the size of Google when looking for a place to build a facility gets courted by many municipalities. One of the first things offered for free are utilities. If you look around at the largest businesses in your city, they more than likely pay no utility bills what-so-ever.

that they are investing into clean energy. Other companies run around screaming that they want coal, while Google says AE. Personally, I wish that Google would make use of some of that money to help create demand for geo-thermal energy, rather than simply investing in it. Honestly, if they insisted on buying energy directly from some geo-thermal locations, they could still manage to keep their costs low, while creating enough demand to stimulate it.

They kinda have too. If Google uses that much power, their Power bill(s) is probably a major expense, finding ways to reduce it by a few percentage, can save a lot of money. Green Energy like wind and solar, needs big power users, who see energy as a major expense and has the resources and will to invest in making cheaper alternatives. Renewable energy sources tend to look good on paper you can get Cheaper Energy in theory after the initial capital expense.

Exactly. People don't realize that big energy users are the people who would love to save energy the most. The trucking industry, for example, would LOVE to find some tech that would improve their gas mileage by even 1%, it would save a lot of these companies Millions of dollars per year.

Geothermal cannot be done safely, cleanly, or efficiently in the USA, or any other corporatism. We have the world's largest geothermal plant in the world's most geothermally active region and it is not only continually over budget and under production, but cleaning the turbine blades led to a superfund site where they buried the detritus removed from them, and has also produced a big fat layer-cake of arsenic and other wonderful materials on site, a cake that is just waiting to break open due to seismic act

There's just not enough geothermal power available to be a primary power source. It's great for towns with a local hotspot (though if locally overused it can apparantly cause earthquakes and strange environmental damage), but it doesn't scale.

By comparison, per square meter of the Earth's surface, there's about 10000 times as more solar power than geothermal power.

Google's datacenter design is an industry secret, but it is routinely reported they are amazingly efficient.

They have opened up about some things, such as their power supply design. They've asked the rest of the world to adopt this, so the entire world would reduce energy consumption. They also run on DC rather than AC. And they don't use mammoth UPS protection. They have a small battery built into each server.

It looks like this story is part of a smear campaign to make Google look like evil for using all t

Anytime you convert AC DC there's some loss due to inefficiency. They can create DC centrally more efficiently than doing it in each and every server chassis (like your home computer does, in the power supply). This efficiency has a two-fold effect as well, since that lossy conversion results in heat as a byproduct, so the more efficient you are with getting power from generation to work, the less you spend on cooling it too.

I'm not an electrical engineer. Why is using DC more efficient than AC? I'm assuming it arrives in the building as AC.

Computers use DC, not AC.

This means that at some point you have to do the conversion. The question is whether it's more efficient to do it in a small converter in each machine (traditional power supply unit), or to do it in a big converter that then feeds many boxes. The question isn't trivial because even though the big converter is unquestionably more efficient, you then have to deliver the DC power to the machines, and DC transmission is less efficient than AC transmission, meaning you either lose more energy to resistance or have to use bigger wires. Another common wrinkle is to convert AC to 48-volt DC then put small step-down transformers in each server or perhaps on each rack. This is because transmission of higher voltages is more efficient.

Bottom line is that there are a lot of tradeoffs and it's really not obvious what the best way to do it is, and Google's put a lot of skull sweat and experimentation into figuring out what's most efficient, and has (I think) published it.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but don't know anything about how power is managed in Google data centers, and haven't even read what Google has published to the world on the topic. Oh, and I am not an electrical engineer either.)

Computers run on DC. The big power supply unit in your PC is an AC-DC converter.

The speculation is that Google is doing a couple of different things in regards to power.

First, they are probably doing the AC to DC conversion at the building's power inlet, and distributing DC to the racks so that each piece of equipment doesn't have to have its own power supply. One big power supply is generally more efficient than lots of small power supplies, not just in conversion efficiency but also in hard equipment cost

The more relevant comparison seems like it'd be to other commercial users. It's not likely that if Google were disbanded, it would turn into residential population; it's more likely that, if we didn't have Google, we'd have other companies employing these people and occupying a certain niche of the economy.

From that perspective, is Google's energy usage high or low for a company of its market-cap / revenue / profits? For example, it has almost exactly the same market cap as Wal-Mart; how does the energy usage of the two companies compare, both in terms of overall size, and things like greenness of the source?

For example, it has almost exactly the same market cap as Wal-Mart; how does the energy usage of the two companies compare, both in terms of overall size, and things like greenness of the source?

While it might be interesting, comparing the power usage of Google and Wal-Mart is about as useful as the above comparison of Google to residences. Internet search & internet advertising are very different businesses from retail department stores & warehouses. Instead compare Google's power use to that of Microsoft, Yahoo, and other computing/data centre companies. If possible, account for the differences in what each company does. As for Wal-Mart, compare them to K-Mart, Kroger, and maybe even Ama

Not really that odd. How do you make a figure of that much power consumption relatable to the average reader?

I have no idea how big Wal-Mart is, but saying it has the same market cap as Google is just as pointless. Wal-Mart has thousands (I assume; like I said, I have no idea how to quantify how big they really are, just that they're really really big) of stores, each with a moderate HVAC system attached.

If you want to go that way, you also have to compare transportation costs - not relevant for Google, hig

I guess I find this a red hearing at best.1. Power to Google is a cost of doing business they are doing all they can to reduce the their power consumption for no other reason the less they spend on power the more profit.2. It is us that is using the power.It is kind of like people complaining about GM selling SUVs. They sold SUVs because that is what people bought. If people bought small fuel efficient cars then they would have made them.Rule one. Don't expect companies to make you do the right thing.Rule t

No, they sold SUV's because they were profitable. It took them a little while to figure out how to get people to buy them, but they pulled it off. And by profitable, I don't mean they sold well, I mean they cost much less to make than they're sold for.

I don't think that's a useful metric either. Google doesn't have thousands of large stores that individually use a lot of energy. Most of Google's energy usage comes from (I assume) the few dozen large datacenters.

In our digital era, if it weren't for Google to offer Search, emails, video streaming, maps, etc... another company would do it. With that in mind, the question becomes: which company offers these services in the greenest way ? I'm pretty sure Google does.

Specifically, my dad had a very cool looking light green '67 Ford Galaxie 500 with a 390 cubic inch V8. When I needed info for a report, my mom used it to drive me down to the public library, probably getting about 9 mpg. So we consumed about 20 kWh worth of fully leaded fuel to do a few simple queries. That's probably enough energy to run one of Google's server nodes for more than a week, but at least we did it in style.

I did a back-of-napkin calculation last night, and came up with about 30-33% of the energy consumption would be related to office operations, and the remainder data center operations. Their data center total came out to something like 170MW demand. Given that a 100,000 square foot data center would be expected to draw about 20MW all-in, the total was much lower than I would have expected. For some reason, I pictured their demand being much higher.

As for alternative energy, green energy, and efficiency, Google really is doing a good job. Comparing them to Bank of America, I would say Google does significantly more for the kWh.

Why is the total electricity used by Google a problem? Google has a huge network of data centers, offices and other business entities that use electricity. The total amount of electricity used is going to be huge.

The real question... has and is Google working to use that electricity wisely and with an eye to maximizing value and minimizing waste? Well from what I have read over the years the answer is Yes.

Everyone, GM, Toyota, the US government, The City of LA, and even my dear old Mom uses electricity (

Only a fool could imagine that the internet uses more resources than the alternative - mailing or faxing all documents, visiting various libraries in person rather than using Wikipedia and Gutenberg where possible, assembling for all semi-important meetings in person rather than teleconferencing (admittedly most organizations still don't make good use of teleconference), rural folks visiting book stores and computer stores in person rather than getting it shipped, etc.

"Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library."

This is exactly akin to Software/Content makers saying that every piracy count is exactly one lost sale. If I had to actually drive to the library, I wouldn't actually DRIVE each time I was wondering about some trivial answer to a meaningless question.

All of that said, data centers use electricity.. if we want to do anything e- or i- (or o- or u-, and sometimes y-) we need to realize that. Google is well aware of how much it spends on electricity, and I'm pretty sure they take steps to try and minimize their expenses (such as using warm-boxes instead of cooling ambient air, etc..)

If I had to actually drive to the library, I wouldn't actually DRIVE each time I was wondering about some trivial answer to a meaningless question.

Okay, now what about that major report due for school. Or any other non-trivial meaningless question that you would have went to the library for and now don't have to.

They aren't implying they are great because of the energy you saved not doing something you wouldn't have done before, even if your habits didn't change, and you searched once or twice a month, Google would STILL be saving massive amounts of energy, and on top of it, they're answering millions of extra meaningless trivial questions.

"Each Bloom Energy Server provides 100kW of power, enough to meet the baseload needs of 100 average homes or a small office building... day and night, in roughly the footprint of a standard parking space. For more power simply add more energy servers."

100kW for 100 average homes? What exactly are they smoking? You can't even run a hair dryer in all 100 homes for that.

reading that google uses mainly consumer hardware for their servers, lots and lots of them. Not even bothering to remove/turn off/ fix servers when hard drives go bad. Power usage is actually a pretty major concideration in enterprise gear.. I wonder if the majority of their power usage is being wasted because of this choice.

I'm really tired of the media knowingly and intentionally misleading their readers into assuming something. The use of absolute figures in the knowledge that most readers have no sense of scale is intentionally stating information out of context.

Jump down to paragraph 5 and the facts are made more relevant due to context:

when it calculates that average energy consumption on the level of a typical user the amount is small, about 180 watt-hours a month, or the equivalent of running a 60-watt light bulb for th

The reason that Google needs to defend its use of electricity is because Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming. When you are a big supporter of those running around telling everybody that the government needs to limit how much energy people can use (limiting how much fossil fuels people can use is the same as limiting how much energy they can use, as we do not have the means, at this time, to replace all of the energy we get from fossil fuels with energy from other sources), then people are going to look closely at how much energy you use.
The issue is not how much energy Google uses. The issue is whether or not Page and Brin are hypocrites. The answer is that they are hypocrites. They preach about Global Warming, yet flew off to the south pacific to view an eclipse.

Eh, not necessarily. I'm sure they're hypocrites to an extent, but you could make the same argument about people who claim to be animal lovers who aren't vegan. Just because a feeling doesn't rule all aspects of your life, that doesn't mean you're a hypocrite. People who eat meat can still work to benefit animals in other ways (working at the shelter, cleaning up a habitat, etc) and people who care about carbon emissions can both invest in cleaner energy while using massive amounts of it. Besides, Google is one of the largest corporations in the world and is primarily geared towards electronic-powered devices; why wouldn't it use a lot of power?

Also, when you have that kind of money, why shouldn't you be able to see the celestial event of a lifetime? Yeah, they could have put it towards more energy, but people could also use the money they spend on entertainment and give it to charity instead. There's nothing wrong with doing both.

Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean what they're *saying* isn't valid; it means that what they're *doing* isn't valid.

If you believe someone gives good advice, then calling them a hypocrite isn't a free pass to spend more time criticizing their following of said advice than you do following it yourself.

I honestly don't care how much energy Sergey and Larry use: we'd get a thousand times farther if we reduced the energy footprint of the average American by a tenth of a percent than we will bitching at Google founders until they implement every green technology known to man. Just accept that they're flawed, self-righteous, and hypocritical and move on.

Well, then I guess you will express similar thoughts the next time someone condemns a prominent promoter of "family values" (or other conservative position) is caught violating those values?
The reason that Brin and Page have to defend themselves from the charge of hypocrisy is that so many in the statist camp constantly try to claim that only people on the other side are hypocritical.

Huh? What statist camp? What does being a statist have to do with criticizing family values? And who says family values are a conservative position? Most liberal families I know have a pretty core set of values, they just vary somewhat from the values held by conservative families.

Calling someone a hypocrite doesn't invalid their point, but it does put it in a meaningful context. If someone is saying the world is going to end next year and we should all repent, how seriously would you take them if they put a great deal of money into a 2 year CD? That's hypocritical. If they truly believed what they were saying they'd be donating it, or at least blowing it. The fact that they're making a long term investment gives you a gauge on their confidence in their own beliefs. Maybe they'r

All you've done is shown me that a ton of CO2 isn't a lot. You're trying to use 60 tons in an OMFG THOSE BASTARDS sort of way, but when you look at it as a single private airplane flight, which really doesn't produce THAT much CO2. So you're probably making your point less relevant to most normal people. You're also ignoring that any other method of getting there would have produced more. So you're either blowing things out of proportion on purpose, or just raging against the fact that Googles founders

The reason that Google needs to defend its use of electricity is because Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming.

But that is a false dichotomy since extreme use of energy does not necessarily imply the energy is obtained from burning coal, fecal matter, babies, dolphins and wood from endangered species in mega furnaces churning tons of smog, sooth, chlorofluorocarbons, weaponized anthrax spores and sarin gas directly into the polar ozone holes.

Taking drastic actions against global warming does not mean turning off the lights completely. It means a lot of other things regarding how to use energy efficiently. And if your business requires to use tremendous amounts of energy but you are doing it in an energy-eco-efficient manner, then you are taking drastic actions.

When you are a big supporter of those running around telling everybody that the government needs to limit how much energy people can use (limiting how much fossil fuels people can use is the same as limiting how much energy they can use, as we do not have the means, at this time, to replace all of the energy we get from fossil fuels with energy from other sources), then people are going to look closely at how much energy you use.

And which is fine and dandy, so long as people do not jump to stupid conclusions of the form (using lots of energy) -> (energy inefficient).

The issue is not how much energy Google uses. The issue is whether or not Page and Brin are hypocrites. The answer is that they are hypocrites.

Your logic is absolutely flawless</rolls eyes>

What is happening here is that you are trying very hard to find a) something to be upset about and b) someone to point the finger at to justify the former.

They preach about Global Warming, yet flew off to the south pacific to view an eclipse.

Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins. The audacity of taking a pleasure trip afforded by someone's earned wealth is an unspeakable horror in this world of absolute black and whites, erasing anything of value done or spoken by the aforementioned tree killers when it comes to eco-responsibility.

By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!! The horror, the horror.

Congratulations sir, here is your trophy for winning the competition of infallible logic: a crowbar. It comes very handy to unplug your one's head out of one's ass.

global warming doesn't require belief anymore then gravity requires belief. It's happening, they overlying heating is caused by man made emission. It's a fact. If someone comes up another plausible cause it will be looked at and evaluated, just like everything else in science.

And why you think people aren't acting on it is beyond me. Insurance companies, city planners, coastal designers, all of the world are seeing change and reacting to it.

By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!!

If you believe that Global Warming is a problem that justifies massive government intervention into the everyday lives of the majority of people, then the answer is "Yes". There is a difference between talking about energy responsibility and saying that we need to stop building new coal fired electric generating plants and shut down existing ones. Page and Brin are in the latter camp.
I do not have a problem with Page and Brin using thier wealth to fly to the south pacific to view the eclipse. I have a pro

The big problem is that every technology has a downside. Solar requires large areas of land; hydro requires us to block off rivers; coal pollutes; oil... also pollutes; nuclear is the biggest target of NIMBY-ism I can think of; geothermal is expensive and hard to do properly.

We can't magically fix our energy problems. There is only so much energy capacity in the world. We can only build so many solar panels, so many hydro plants, so man coal or oil plants, so many windmills. The better solution to fixin

The question is not about what we "need". It is about who gets to decide. However, if you are telling that grandma that she shouldn't buy that PC that draws 700W, because she doesn't need it, then you had better not fly off to the south pacific to watch the eclipse, because it is a lot clearer that you don't need to do that than it is that grandma doesn't need that PC.

By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!!

If you believe that Global Warming is a problem that justifies massive government intervention into the everyday lives of the majority of people, then the answer is "Yes".

Ah, I get it. You correctly identify that Global Warming is a massive externality not accounted for by current markets, and therefore can only be addressed by government intervention, or altruism on a massive, unprecedented and completely unlikely scale. You then use an exaggerated position that cannot be met by anybody who isn't living in a cave off of berries, and which serves a dual-purpose: it guarantees that no one can talk about how to fix Global Warming, and, in the unlikely case you do come across s

An Ad Hominem attack is to discredit the argument because of characteristics of the one making the argument. All I am doing is pointing out that Page and Brin are hypocrites. I have not at any time argued that because they are hypocrites that AGW is not true. I have said that I am unlikely to take the arguments of a hypocrite seriously on the subject about which they are being hypocritical.

a carbon taxor cap is simply a tax or regulation on a negative externality, something we have been doing for hundreds of years there is no expansion of government power with that. The expansion of power came most recently when bush signed the USAPATRIOT act

Or, you know, it could be that they understand that drastic action doesn't mean moving back to caves and living off of berries. That there is something in between our current use and zero that would mitigate our current problem.

No, couldn't be. Instead of proposing sensible solutions that are easy to implement which have a significant effect, they are hypocrites to be ignored. Let me guess: the only people who aren't hypocrites are the people who tell you what you're doing is A-OK, and that you don't need t

I love how when a prominent spokesperson who calls for Americans to return to moral values is caught violating those moral values it is used as evidence that all proponents of moral values are morally bankrupt. But when people who call for Western economies to bankrupt themselves to prevent the disaster of Global Warming are caught acting as if it is no big deal, we are supposed to ignore thier actions and just evaluate thier message.

I love how when a prominent spokesperson who calls for Americans to return to moral values is caught violating those moral values it is used as evidence that all proponents of moral values are morally bankrupt.

Citation needed.

But when people who call for Western economies to bankrupt themselves to prevent the disaster of Global Warming

Citation needed.

are caught acting as if it is no big deal

Citation needed.

we are supposed to ignore thier actions and just evaluate thier message.

Strawman.

Man, not even one sentence that can be used as a point of debate in any way.

I don't have an issue with Google using more power so we lose less. I have an issue with them using it as an excuse to blame people for power usage, by going to the library. It's the responsibility of big corporations to push economical, green energy, not to push oil and coal on us and then blame the people for global warming etc.

They are not blaming people for going to the library. They are saying, or so their argument goes, they are facilitating people with more energy-efficient means of searching things compared to driving to the library.

That you deliberately chose to interpret their argument the way you did speaks more about your than them. Either that or there is a tremendous failz in reading comprehension.

Being from a pre-internet generation, I don't remember rushing to the library more than once because I "had to know right now". Library trips weren't more frequent; knowledge searches were just far more sporadic, waiting until the due date for your currently checked out books. As such, Google can't say they're saving energy that way, but they can say that they're helping to foster a more educated populace (educated in *what* is a separate question). Kind of like how the invention of the vacuum cleaner di

You have a good point (I'm also from the pre-internet, brick-n-mortar library era as well.) One could then argue that Google is helping to foster a more "educated" (in question marks) population in a more energy-efficient manner that what would be possible with brick-n-mortar libraries alone.